Posted on 04/16/2005 6:43:03 PM PDT by vox_freedom
A lovechild producer confessee.
"Well at least it ain't work" as he said with a smirk",
"Deez vest-mints make me look kinda' dressy".
LOL! Deez vest-mints!
LOL
You did good.
You too.
Actually, I think he's on speed dial!
LOL! Who knew you had such talent!
The visceral reaction towards some of William's statements makes one wonder whether he (Williamson) is on to something.
"Surely!"
I for one, am sick of seeing that "quote" of Bishop Williamson. From my research, no one can give evidence that this is a direct quote. It's been reported to me that this was an anti-Catholic reporter who "eavesdropped" on a conversation the bishop was having during a gathering in a social hall after the event. So, it's dubious at best.
I've asked numerous people who've posted it in order to calumniate the man to provide the context and just let me know what was said before and after. No one ever has.
Beyond that, the last time I checked, the historicity of the Jewish Holocaust was not a matter of Catholic doctrine.
And beyond that, if you go onto various websites sposored by Holocaust interested parties like the ADL, they can't make up their minds about what happened at that time period. There is a huge rift among these groups between "conservatives" and "liberals" about whether to include homosexuals as part of the Holocaust. This is because for decades it was reported that Hitler and his henchmen were all "perverted homosexuals". Now that story has become politically incorrect.
There is a lot of mythology mixed in with the events of WWII. I believe Williamson is not afraid to say that.
But the "quote" as cited doesn't have Williamson's careful language and qualfiers that he has always used when I've heard him speak. He's much more unfriendly towards high level freemasons in his language than he is towards anyone who is Jewish.
I can hunt down quotes of Williamson where he prefaces his comments with "I know this is not politically correct but it must be said. There are anti-Catholic groups of Jews and Freemasons that have made themselves enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, by no means am I saying that about all Jews or all freemason. I'm referring specifically to those that are against Jesus Christ and his Church."
Anyone can hear the Bishop by getting ahold of his taped interviews with Bernard Janzen over the last 20 years. You can hear him from before during and after the consecrations in 88 all the way to 2003 and still going. He's consistent, he's rationale and he's very holy and Catholic. I would say he's saintly.
Must you sling mud, Grey Ghost II? Remarks like that only confirm my belief that radical traditionalists such as yourself are sometimes nastier than neo-modernists.
The quote by Williamson, which can be found in this article...
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html
...to my knowledge, was not among the disputed issues in subsequent letters to the editor.
Also, Bill Grossklas, who spent several years in the SSPX, did not dispute anything in my column.
How so?
The WORST anti-Catholics are NOT Jews or Freemasons, but OTHER CATHOLICS!!!
Williamson is the South End of a horse.
Remarks like that only confirm my belief that radical traditionalists such as Grosssklas are sometimes nastier than neo-modernists.
And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Did you see every letter to the editor? Or, just the ones that you were allowed to see? And more importantly, is the lack of response automatically a capitulation to the accuracy of the report? What kind of logic is that?
Also, Bill Grossklas, who spent several years in the SSPX, did not dispute anything in my column.
So, and ex-Catholic priest who does not dispute a book or article by Jack Chick or James White is automatically proof positive that Chick and or White is correct. I understand.
My original point stands. No one ever provides the context of Williamson's alleged statement. Not a sentence before, not a sentence after. Not the question that was posed to him, not a response. I've heard Williamson say statements that are similar in terms of his acknowledgement that the Church has enemies who scheme against her. But he has always provided certain qualifiers that show that he is either speculating or providing what the various levels of rumor that are circulating.
The article by Case is a hit piece, pure and simple. It's loaded with language and falsehoods that are typical of the conciliarist attempts to mischaracterize the Society. It's reading garbage like that and the stuff from other noted "ex-SSPXer's" that led me to explore the society. I thought to myself, "These guys are too outrageous to believe this stuff." And then, I realized that people like Case and Grossklass are simply not telling the truth. They are conspiracists or in the case of one of them, an admitted "former" Satanist who I personally believe never left Satanism and simply found a better way to undermine the Church by undermining the society from the conciliarist position.
It's also interesting how this "fly on the wall" knows the inner workings of Williamson's interior disposition. Especially when the Bishop's public actions, writings and interviews as well the testimonials of many people who have met the man personally have stated the opposite.
Williamson is not a sedevacantist. He refused to confirm children from a suspect independent priest unless they specifically made a public profession of the validity of the then Pope JPII.
Williamson does not believe that women cannot be saved and hearing their confessions is a waste of time. That is utterly ludicrous. Williamson actually speaks of family and husband and wife in the most beautiful of terms. Williamson blames the lapse of society squarely on the shoulders of men refusing their obligations to their wives, families and states of life.
I could go on and on providing example after example of the errors in the Case article and the truth of what Williamson actually teaches and preaches. As I said, before, you can go hear him speak when he comes around to give confirmations and you'll even have an opportunity to speak with him personally if you want afterwards. Or, more conveniently, get the 23 hours of taped interviews over a 20 year period by Bernard Janzen. My personal experience, first person source material and the consensus of many others that I know who have met the man simply overrides the disgruntled ramblings of a former participant who snapped for whatever reason.
Do you have anything real to contribute? Or are you just happy being hateful?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.